12/09^01 0 11:34 FAX 2024935142 FAA . DMS @001/007 

M 8B R Helicopters ''^'-•' ^P^f^AJlQl^iS 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

Decembers, 2010 

mSO 001/ I^0ID-Q\l 

Laura Ponto, Esq 

Enforcement Division/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

't/Sen t by Fax 202-267-5106 

Re: Federa l Hearing Docke t Location 

Re: File 2009SO950434 

Dear Ms Ponto: 

This letter is pursuan t to my voice mail left yesterday requesting 

information and direction as to how to locate the online docket entries. In your 

reference -Rules of Practice 13.210(e) it mentions internet accessibility of 

dockets filed in the Federal hearing docket and a website. This docket was not 

valid, by the help desk personnel at 877-398-5457, she then directed me to the 

FAA website help person at 202-267-9677. She could not find it. She directed 

me to my FSDO where 1 spoke to my ops inspector, Frank Alotta, who also did 

not know how to find it. This is starting to sound similar to the needle in a 

hay."5t.ack, search and find mission in regard to some of the regulations, that I 

was unaware of and you are trying to find me in violation of. 

Please advise me how 1 can locate this docket, so I can update myself 

and be advised. 

Thank you for your kind considerations. 

Yours Sincerely, 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

cc. Hearing Docket, Clerk 
12/09/2010 n;34 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS 121002/007 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC. 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C 

Federol Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto. Latonya Williams 

Corriplainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

FAA Case: No: 2009SO950434 

V. 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT TO QUASH 

ADDITIONAL SUBSTANTIATING EVIDENCE 

AND NOW, comes respondent, MICHAEL B. SELIG, MD, FACC. 

principle for MR Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (inoperative since 2009) whom overs 

and files \he following MOTION FOR JUDGMENT TO Quash due to insuificiency 

and failure to produce DISCOVERY in accordance to Rule 13.220 (d). 

1. On July 21, 2009, FAA Officers, Latonya Williams and Kimmy Poon 

appeared for the initial inspection. 

2. Ms Williams disclosed that there was a Regulation change that 

occurred in February 2004, requiring all A & P mechanics to be on a company 

specific drug program. 

1 of 5 
12/09/201 0 11:3 5 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^DM S 0003/007 

3. Ms Williams failed to provide evidence for the requested specific 

regulations, language, details, references or training with regard to her cited 

specific regulation changes, 

4. On August 14, 2009, Ms Williams's letter informed MRH that possible 

violations were under investigation. 

5. On July 23, 2010, respondent was served with a Notice of Proposed 

Civil Penally, citing a potential fine of $5400 (Fifty-Four Hundred Dollars). 

6. On September 25, 2010, respondent requested a copy of the 

complete investigative report via telephone communication with Ms Ponto. 

7. On October 22, 2010, respondent was served with on incomplete 

investigative file which included several altered, redacted and spoliated 

documents. 

6. On October 27, 2010, a letter was addressed to Ms Ponto requesting 

a complete physical copy of all the Regulations referenced in her complaint, 

inclusive of adoption dates and revision dates to confirm prior statements made 

on behalf of the parties. 

8. In the letter of October 27, 2010, respondent requested full, unaltered 

copies of documents that were produced in the incomplete investigation file, 

that were either stricken, blocked out. redacted or spoliated. 

9. In the letter of October 27, 2010, it was requested to provide the 

physical reference of Jordon v Department of Justice that Ms Ponto cited in her 

correspondence. 

2 of 5 
12/09/2010 11:35 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS @l004/007 

10. In the letter of October 27, 2010, it was requested to provide the 

physical reference for policies on disclosure restrictions, 

n . In the letter of November 24, 2010, the above items were requested 

0 second time, in addition a change of hearing location to Allentown, PA. 

12. In the letter of November 27, 2010, respondent a third time reminded 

parties of the outstanding discovery and as well as requested- the transcripts'of 

the October 1, 2010 telephone hearing. 

13. The parties did not follow the standard practice pertaining to rules of 

evidence of attaching referenced documents. 

14. In violation of Rule 13.220 (d) the parties have not responded by way 

of objection or production of discovery that is now post the 30 day deadline 

period. 

15. In addition, the alleged violation for Mr Baker according to Ms 

Williams Inspector Statement lOP 9 record, was due to her inability to validate 

FAA approved drug and alcohol testing program information for Flight Methods. 

Mr Baker was not employed by Flight Methods, but by Air Mernoas Corporation 

16. Mr Baker has always been employed since 1996 by the regions 

University Medevoc Hospital sen/ice and always without interruption, was on a 

drug and alcohol program. Evidence submitted confirms that Mr Baker was under 

a monitoring program by ERA Med from May 1, 2006- November 4, 2007. He then 

1 Please refer 1o pleadings entitled Preliminary Objections, Motion and Brief to Quash, Motion to 

Strike Allegation, Motion for Deposition, Motion to compel discover/. 

3 Of 5 
12/09/2010 11:35 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 12005/007 

became employed by Air Methods Corporation, from November 5, 2010 to the 

present, when he came onto their drug/alcohol program. In addition, Mr Baker 

was concurrently on the Notional Guord drug/alcohol program in his capacity as 

a National Guard A&.P and Helicopter pilot. 

17. Ms Williams was given this evidence, but selected not to pursue 

primary source verification and/or confirmation of these facts xiuriuant to 

§13.224, wherein the burden of proof is on the agency, not respondent. 

18. Ms Williams did thoroughly investigate the other mechonic/lA doing 

safety sensitive functions on MRH aircraft and she confirmed that the information 

given was correct as stated and withdrew all violations, similarly, on thot behalf 

and accordingly. 

19. Ms Williams did not follow the same procedure she did for the 

mechanic/IA, for Mr Baker, therefore, insufficiently met the spirit and intent of 

§13,224, wherein the burden of proof is on the agency, not respondent. Had Ms 

Williams followed through, she would have arrived at the same conclusion and no 

violation woi..!d have been fcund. 

20. Ttiere were several factors concerning clear and undisputed 

disclosure of regulations, regulations that were not cleariy contained, listed, 

spelled out or in a forthright manner evident within the signed off compliance 

statement and operational specifications, thereby hidden, concealed and 

encouraging violation, rather than effective compliance in the spirit of safety. 

21. There were several factors concerning clear and undisputed 

4 of 5 
12/09/2010 11:36 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS @l006/007 

interpretation of the language and meaning contained within the signed off 

compliance .statement and operational specifications, thereby encouraging 

violation, rather than effective compliance in the spirit of safety and contrary to 

standard practices in Administration law. In Administrative Law "In the 

interprefafion of the language of regulations, where doubt exists as to the infant of 

the meaning of the language written and enacted bya-governing body, the 

language shall be interpreted in favor of the Party and against any implied 

extension of a restriction". 

20. Ms Williams erred and therefore all violations should be dropped. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will either dismiss 

the cose on the basis of violating Rule 13.220 (d) or on the basis that there were 

many false fundamental facts and therefore false premise for the citing the 

violations. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

il^-V*^ .... 

Michael B. Sclig, MD, FACC ^' JJC^-^' 

Date ^ 

5 of 5 
12/09/2010 11:36 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 0007/007 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Lotonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

FAA Cose 200?SO950434 

V. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEReBY CERTIFY that 1 have this day served the foregoing entrie(s): 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT TO QUASH 

ADDITIONAL SUBSTANTIATING EVIDENCE 

upon all parties of record in this proceeding, in accordance with the requirements of Rule ?9 

pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § yiA(,. 

Service bv first-class mail, oostaae prepaid, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviafion Adininistration 

600 Independence Avenue, Sw 

Wilbur Wright Avenue-Suite 2W1000 (j 2 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Atl: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Laura Ponto, Esq 

Enforcement Division/AGC- 300 

OihC€, OT Trie \....'"iie7 ^oonsS] 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

I /FAX 202 26/5106 

By: 

(I (•••'' 

w\t-> I 

Michoel B- Selig, MD, FACC. 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, Pa. ISIO-I 

610 360 3953 

Date: 

\vU-

-^ 

v^-H-V^^